What is wrong in Minnesota? So many really bad stories out of Minnesota. George Floyd, Justine Damond, Philandro Castilo and now we have this. Minnesota law states that it's not rape if the person has voluntarily been drinking on their own. What kind of warped people pass such a law?
A Minnesota man can’t be charged with rape, because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules
Well, its not like no woman never hollered rape when there was no rape.
This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
.
Also....well known....some women mean yes when they say no.
Also...well known that women have more intense orgasms whilst being raped and they are more likely to get pregnant when raped than when having normal intercourse.
The pleasure factor women get from being raped is one reason that so many of them feel intense guilt....and that is also a factor in why some men become rapists...they get an intense satisfaction watching a woman they are forcing to have sex get such pleasure from the act.
Yes, orgasms can happen to rape victims.
www.popsci.com
It is dangerous mixing up two totally different things here
TheGreenHornet
The only way I can make any serious sense of what you posted is if you mean
sexual aggressiveness that is still consensual such as Submission/Dominance between consenting partners in a stable relationship
IE
NOT mentally, psychologically or sexually abusive
and
NOT criminal acts of rape that are violence
forced on victims either against their will
or without their ability to consent
or under other conditions of coercion,
fraud, duress or other disparity taking
advantage where the person isn't freely consenting
More cases of rape, abuse and trafficking
get written off and assumed to be consensual.
If cases were truly consensual then nobody would go back and claim it wasn't.
On some level, those two partners didn't agree on conditions of the relationship.
So "relationship abuse" is so common,
that's why it makes it so easy to dismiss rape in a social culture that allows people
freedom to abuse sex and people as normal.
If we tolerate abusing relations for sex, it is seen as "crying wolf" or "asking to get abused as if consenting to it."
This is like blaming victims who die from poisoning from counterfeit drugs for "wanting to kill themselves" by voluntarily taking drugs.
Does that mean cartels can get away with murder if they sell the victims deadly poison instead of a different illegal substance they agreed to buy and use?
As long as the victim AGREED to purchase and consume an illegal drug, then it's "their fault" if a crooked dealer sells them poison under a fraudulent label who cannot be charged with murder if the victims "consented to use drugs risking their lives."
What about dangerous cars?
If a person agrees to ride in car, knowing freeways and speeds above 55-60 are more deadly if collisions occur, then can a dangerous driver get away with killing passengers by breaking the law, driving too fast and reckless against the passengers' consent, just because they agreed to get in the car?
Where does this end?
Are you saying nobody has the right to say no or change their mind?
If I agree to eat dinner you cooked, but then find out you spiked it with hallucinogenic additives, are you saying I consented when I agreed to dinner? And justifying this because "everyone likes to eat food" and "most people enjoy hallucinogens to get high."
So this overrides the rights of the person to say no, and gives you free reign to abuse, drug, or cause brain damage to the person against their will?
????